I think what education needs more of is healthy, constructive criticism. We’re getting too lax about doing everything the same. old. way. every. time. If no one challenges our thinking, then how can we grow as educators?

Your proposal, and the constructive feedback you’ve received from fellow bloggers, is great. I hope you will press forward with this.

I also love the LOLCats picture. ;-)

Since your comments address similar points, I thought I’d hit them in one shot. I’d say ‘kill two birds with one stone,’ but the last thing I need is PETA on my case.

There are plenty of ed-tech’ers who would be at a loss for words if they were faced with an on-the-spot question of, “So what?” Many of those who would have a response would weigh it down with eduspeak that dances around the real issue.

That’s the reality of much of ed-tech, and it comes from two sources, in my opinion:

1. Not having been exposed to strong, relevant professional criticism that prepares ed-tech’ers for answering the question;

2. Deviating from that mindset of healthy skepticism that encompasses Terry’s a) and b), as well as Darren’s more general point about critical thinking.

When guys like Bretag have to plead for such basic things as proper criticism before adoption/evangelism, we need to recognize that the sector could use a robust change in attitude – and anyone concerned about education, technology, or where the two meet should be strong advocates of this professional criticism.

I couldn’t agree more.

Critical thinking about what we’re doing will do far more to benefit our practice and thinking than surrounding ourselves with like-minded yes-men.

As far as Bretag’s work goes, check out this post first – I think it will resonate with your line of thinking.

At the end of the day, if it doesn’t lead to (a) an improvement in X, and (b) a greater improvement in X than could have been achieved at a lower cost (however measured) then it has too little value to be entertained any further.

Thanks for the comments – I think that an honest skepticism [not trashing tech. for the sake of giving everyone a hard time, obviously] could play a larger role in ed-tech. I think that everyone would benefit tremendously from it.

I’m less familiar with Ryan Bretag’s work [I'll check it out shortly], but I did read Gary’s comments. He’s long been in the minority on some Web 2.0 initiatives [I largely agree with his views in that sphere] and at a certain point it seems useless when you’re outnumbered a billion to one. I think that the ed-tech community should take greater note of dissent – the Bretags and the Stagers should be sought out rather than ignored.

And that’s a large part of what I’m proposing here – being proactive about criticism, skepticism and analysis, making it an important part of every ed-tech’s regimen. Certainly a few will pop up who are stirring the pot just for the sake of it, but those folks are quickly [and rightly] ignored when their arguments lack merit. The genuine dissent will reap rewards for all.

As for being welcomed, there’s certainly been plenty of resistance for me – intimations that I wrote posts for Technorati rankings, that I’m out to bring down the ed-tech social order, etc. Bretag and Stager are likely right, but if we commit to honest analysis, we’ll see benefits in both the long and short runs.

There are far too few critics in this venue/field and I think we’re at a point in time where additional constructive criticism (or learning how to do it appropriately) would greatly help members of our growing, online community.

I wonder, however, if your focus is actually valid: “With Web 2.0 technologies and digital media comes criticism – the good, the bad and the ugly.” It just seems that so many have accepted Web 2.0 without a critical eye. We need folks like you to keep us honest.

I wonder, however, if others would welcome your differing viewpoint. I recently mourned the fact that both Ryan Bretag and Gary Stager publicly mentioned how they didn’t feel that their viewpoints would be welcome at an event like EduBloggerCon.

Without honest, constructive criticism, we will never grow to our full potential.

Best of luck,

DD

1. Agreed – I’ll revise to change the focus slightly.

2. That’s a good idea, additional media that could go more in-depth into things that won’t fit or are fringe issues.

1. I think it’s a matter of a change of emphasis slightly rather than a revision as such.

2. If you develop a set of “rules”, you could make them available on an accompanying pdf or a blog post, and just refer to them in the podcast.